Baur know that this "being equal with God," must be the re-
ward only of his moral probation ? According to the apostle, it
equally stood in the power of him of whom he speaks, laa ~u> 0eo>
elvai } and to empty himself. What determined him to choose the
latter was the principle of self-denying love which the Philippians
are called to take for their example. But it is objected, how then
could it be said that Christ would not lay hold of what, according
to this view, he already had ?* Follow closely the scope of the
* I cannot go along with Lunemann and Bruckner in their view of the laa r$ de$
e/vat, however much I rejoice in being able to concur with them in their general import
of the passage. Both believe that the fundamental error of Baur lies in this, that he
understands one and the same thing by the tv ,op0// Oeov flvai, and the laa TV 6f$ elvai.
They, therefore, make an essential distinction between the two expressions, and would
find in the former the thought, that Christ, although he was in a Divine form, still did not
wish to vindicate to himself a Kvpiorrif such as God possesses. Lunemann, p. 11, potiri
autem potuisset hoc existendi vel vivendi modo, quo ipse vivit Deus, si uoluisset se sub-
mittere atque serviro Deo Deique consiliis, sed potius regnare voluisset aeque ac regnat
ipse Deus, subjectus nemini. To the like effect Brfickner, p. 28. I do not believe that
even for the sake of contrast with the iKevuaev iavrov the apostle would have said any-
thing so incredible of Christ. For that Christ could obtain the /cvptor;/f, ver. 11, only in
INTRODUCTION. 351
passage. Christ is represented as an example of self-denying love,
and this is shewn in the circumstance that between two possibilities
he chooses and accomplishes that which love determines him to
adopt. But in every real choice and determination, which turns on
the exchange of an old state for a new, the earlier one, which already
belongs to me, appears momentarily as surrendered, and, in the
event of my deciding for it, I lay hold of it anew. The expression
ovx dp-nayiwv rjyijaaro thus admits a satisfactory explanation. See
further the Comm. on the passage. Is it alleged that in this pre-
existent condition of Christ, a doctrine not properly Pauline, is
introduced? Omitting the epistles, which Baur deems not gen-
uine, passages like 2 Cor. viii. 9 ; 1 Cor. viii. 6 ; 1 Cor. xv. 47,
cannot, without great arbitrariness, be referred to the so-termed
historical Christ. Comp. Liinemann, p. 8, seq., and the length-
ened discussion of this point in Bruckner in the Appendix, p.
84, etc.
But how comes the apostle by the expression ov% dp-rrayiwv 77777-
aaro ? It is certainly found nowhere else in his writings. But is
it of so very peculiar a character as to be explicable only from the
Gnostic aprrayna ? The sense of the passage requires an expression
for indicating that Christ did not, as looking merely to him-
self choose Divine glory. Is the dpnaynov then, surprising, when,
according to the connexion, it is presented as the relatively selfish
choice ? What has the term here employed to do with the dpnayfia
of the Gnostic theosophy ? How little knows the Gnosis of an elvat
v fjtofxfrfj Q S V m the sense of our passage, of an elvai taa TO} 0eo> (laa
being taken as an adverb), how little, finally, of a iavrbv KEVOVV \
All these designations have an entirely New Testament, nay Pauline
impress. How does ^op^r) dsov essentially differ from ekwv rov Oeov
in 2 Cor. iv. 4 ? Has not the Knivuaev iav TOV a substantial parallel
in the tTrruxevoe of 2 Cor. viii. 9 ? Is the expression KKVOVV not
elsewhere sufficiently familiar to the apostle (Rom. iv. 14 ; 1 Cor. i.
17, etc.), to account for its use here, where it is so perfectly in place ?
How can we say that the author moves in the circle of Gnostic ideas
and expressions, when neither his ideas nor his expressions are to be
found in the Gnostics, but are entirely homogeneous with his well-
known manner of thought and expression ?
The passage just cited, however, would seem not the only one
of its kind ; and in the case of an author who moves in the circle of
Gnostic ideas this is to be expected. The words ev 6fj,ot^an dv-
yevopevos, K. T. A., in ii. 7 must also be Gnostic, because in
the way of self-denial, is self-evident. But even while he attains this Kvptoni^ he does
not ascend to a higher dignity than his pre-existent one ; whereas, according to Bruckner
and Liinemann, a still higher dignity was held out to the Aoyof aaapnof, which he has
reached by Liinemann's express declaration, as
352 INTRODUCTION.
fine these words in ver. 10, "every knee of the heavenly, earthly,
and subterraneous (beings)," are Docetic, and genuinely Gnostic.
Now, we have all the traces of Gnosticism that occur in our epistle,
nothing of that description being found in the remaining parts
of it !
In regard to the latter passage, it is to be shewn in the exposi-
tion that here the " Gnostic" idea of the descent into hell is not to
be thought of (as if this idea, too, were exclusively Gnostic, because
it is to be met wTth in Marcion) ! For the meaning of na-axdovioi
see the exposition, and in respect to the tnovpavioi Bruckner justly
points to the passages 1 Cor. xv. 2428 ; Rom. viii. 38, 39, which
speak of the all-embracing power of Christ. Bruckner also expressly
assures us, p. 35, that the thought, under this precise expression,
never occurs in the Gnostics.
As to the Docetic meaning found by Baur in KV dfioiwpari ayflpw-
TTWV yevopevog, becoming in the likeness of men, we need not urge
the arguments of Liinemann and Bruckner against it, that Christ
actually differed from all other men, in that he was conscious of no
sin (2 Cor. v. 21) ; for the idea of " man" does not include that
of sin. Sin is rather to be regarded as an accident of human
nature ; hence also in other passages, such as Bom. v. 15, 1 Cor.
xv. 21, Paul denotes Christ unconditionally avdpu-noq. Baur is also
right in maintaining that Rom. viii. 3, in which God is said to
have sent his Son " in the likeness of sinful flesh," cannot be
reckoned parallel to the one before us. Neither, however, does it
prove, as Baur supposes, that the expression in the present passage
is Docetic, in that, viz., the likeness which in the case of the Son,
refers there to the sinful flesh, is, in Phil. ii. 7, extended to his entire
humanity. For we can easily conceive why the author, who in an-
other connexion could not have hesitated to say dvdp(jrro$ yev6pevo$,
should here have said precisely tv dfioiufw. dvdpunuv y. ; viz., that
he speaks here neither of Divine nor of human nature, but simply
of the Divine and human form of existence and life. Baur has very
strangely indeed overlooked this when he says, " Were he already
God, wherefore should he wish to become what he already was ?" etc.
We reply, the language refers neither to his being previously God,
nor to his being subsequently man ; but as before the discourse was
only of a Divine form in which Christ was, previous to his humilia-
tion, so afterwards it can only be of a form of manifestation belonging
to him, which is designated by his " taking the form of a servant,"
being " in the likeness of men," and " found in fashion as a man."
To have said simply dvdpdmog yevofievos, were only to have expressed
himself less accurately than he has done.
The second series of objections raised by Baur against the genu-
ineness of our epistle, refers to its general character. Tender and
INTRODUCTION. 353
pleasing as are its thoughts and sentiments, the epistle still suffers,
he thinks, from a monotonous repetition ; from the want of a pro-
found pervading connexion, and from a certain poverty of thought.
With this is connected the absence of a sufficient occasion for
such a communication, and of a distinctly announced object and
train of thought. Its polemical features give the impression of
existing only because polemics belong to the general character of
Paul's epistles. It is deficient in the freshness and naturalness
which distinguish these, and in the objective nature of the relations
indicated. So, in particular, in the passage iii. 18. The strong
expressions stand in place of a vigorous colouring in its polemical
features. Kvveg in iii. 2 is coarse ; strained and unnatural the con-
trast between Kararofj,^ and Trepiro^, introduced merely to give the
apostle an opportunity to speak of himself. Then, iii. 2, seq., is
a mere copy of 2 Cor. xi. 18. How universally known are the things
which the apostle relates here of the circumstances of his life ! The
expression " righteousness in the law" is not Pauline. The whole -is
flat and uninteresting. But especially does it awaken suspicion,
that it never comes clearly out what had moved the apostle to write
the epistle. In iv. 10, seq., indeed, an occasion is mentioned in
connexion with a present which the Philippians had sent to Rome
for his support. But the passage iv. 15, according to which the
apostle had repeatedly received support from the church at Phil-
ippi, involves a contradiction with the apostle's statement in 1 Cor.
ix. 15, " I have used none of these things," namely, those which
belonged to living from the gospel. A certain limitation, indeed,
is given to this assertion of the apostle by the admission, in 2
Cor. xi. 9, that during his abode at Corinth brethren from Mace-
donia had ministered to his necessities. But in Phil. iv. 15, the
matter is represented as if it had been an arrangement subsisting
from the beginning, as if the apostle had to make a sort of reckon-
ing with the Philippians as to giving and receiving. One can
scarcely avoid the supposition that the author had 2 Cor. xi. 9
before his eyes, and deduced too much from it. The mention,
presently after, of the contributions previously received, betrays the
false apostle. Paul would have indicated more plainly the contri-
bution mentioned in ver. 15, by which is to be understood that sent
to Corinth according to 2 Cor. xi. 9 ; and would not have mentioned
last, in ver. 16, the contributions he had received at an earlier pe-
riod. It is also matter of stumbling, that, according to ver. 16, the
apostle's sojourn in Thessalonica is spoken of as much longer than
the history in the Acts would lead us to suppose. Even from what
is said at ch. iv. 10, seq., upon the occasion of the epistle, there is
good reason to suppose that we have only a feigned situation
before us.
VOL. V. 23
354 INTRODUCTION.
It is not without due consideration that I have exhibited at
length this second series of Baur's objections; for I hope the reader
who has them here clearly before him, that he may himself judge
of them, will excuse me from meeting them one by one. This has
also been laudably undertaken by others, as Liinemann and Bruck-
ner. I simply remark that Baur has utterly failed to establish his
condemnatory judgment in charging this epistle with monotony,
poverty of thought, and want of a profound internal connexion.
In its subject matter where do we find monotonous repetition and
poverty of thought ? How clearly do its several parts divide them-
selves from each other (comp. 2), and how characteristic is the
treatment of each ! Only let us not ourselves mix what in the
epistle is divided. Thus, how very differently are his personal op-
ponents in Rome described in ch. i. 15, seq., from the enemies of
whom he warns his readers in ch. iii. 2, seq ! How plainly, again,
are these distinguished from the persons named in ch. iii. 18,
seq. ! And we have still again others before us in ch. i. 28. How
new and peculiar is the representation given of his position and
his experience in prison, when compared with what is found in
the other epistles ! How completely does ch. ii. 19-30 transport
us into the circumstances of the apostle, and provide for us solutions
in regard to his most special references ! The epistle is, in fact, re-
markable for its great variety of matter ; and the description given
of the state of things then existing is so precise, that one can scarcely
understand for what purpose the author of the epistle, supposing
him to have been a writer of the second century, should have entered
with such detail into the apostle's relations at Rome, and specified,
for example, with such cordiality, the love of Epaphroditus, as is
done by the apostle in ch. ii. 25, seq. Or does the monotony consist
in this, that the apostle repeatedly speaks of his joy, and calls on
his readers to rejoice ? Here is certainly repetition, but such as
discloses the fulness of the heart from which the words proceeded.
The reproach of monotony, however, and of poverty of thought,
though raised against the whole epistle, must be understood as di-
rected chiefly against the polemical part, and more particularly the
passage at the commencement of ch. iii. Fault is expressly found
with it, at least for its flatness and feebleness. The passage can only
be an infelicitous copy of 2 Cor. xi. 18.
Dr. Baur appeals at once to " writing the same things" ( avrd
ypd<f>eiv) in ch. iii. 1, as betraying the author's own sense of poverty
of thought. But in reality the difficulty in expounding these words
arises from the absence of anything similar in the preceding con-
text ; so that many expositors have been led to look out of the
epistle altogether, and to suppose a reference to some earlier oral
expressions or a previous epistle. We, who have only this epistle
INTRODUCTION. 355
before us, can surely not complain of monotony and poverty of
thought, merely on account of this expression. And as to the
polemical passage itself, which follows ver. 2, the copy of 2 Cor. xi.
18 ! The passage has indeed a strong resemblance to the one be-
fore us ; but none can wonder at this, since on both occasions the
apostle has the same opponents in his eye, and in opposition to
them, handles the same subject. Is it not also natural to the apos-
tle, when he comes to speak elsewhere of this fleshly privilege
(comp. Rom. xi. 1, KGU yap eya> 'Irrpa^AtT^ dfj,i : etc.), so to do it, as to
specify in detail the particular points belonging to it ? And then,
with all the resemblance that our passage bears to the other, what
diversity also ! It does, indeed, require proof that the one passage
is only an infelicitous copy of the other. Baur lays stress, with this
view, on the dogs in ver. 2, and still more on the Kararofirj (concis-
ion) with its contrast nepiTOfir) (circumcision), in ver. 3. The ex-
pression dogs is not delicate ; in that Baur is quite right ; but
neither is " ministers of Satan" in 1 Cor. xi. 15, as others have
already noticed. And who shall prove that the apostle has not
himself used that very common word, that only an imitator of
the passage in Corinthians has done so ? As regards the other
two expressions, Lunemann justly points to Gal. v. 11, 12, where
the apostle in a manner quite similar places an dnoKo^ovrat over
against nepiTovrj. Dr. Baur takes offence at Christians being called
the true, the Jews the false circumcision. But this is not the
sentiment of the passage. The apostle does not speak of Jews,
and say that their circumcision is a false one. He only says that
the circumcision of which the opponents were making a boast, has
no higher value than a mere cutting of the flesh of one's body.
And have we not in Eom. ii. 25, seq., a "circumcision becoming
uncircumcision," and " an uncircumcision being reckoned for cir-
cumcision ?" Have we not also in vers. 28, 29, a similar thought,
though introduced with a different reference ? And this " un-
natural" contrast is brought in merely to give the apostle an op-
portunity to speak of himself! It is not true, however, that the
opportunity is thus taken ; for it is by a new turn in the discourse
that he comes, at ver. 4, to speak of himself, and in doing so, allows
the contrast entirely to drop. I refer to my exposition of the pas-
sage ; and merely remark here, that if there is a single passage in
the epistle that bears the genuine Pauline impress, it is this. So
far from the discourse being made violently to assume a personal
form, it is in the simplest and most impressive manner that the
apostle shews in his own person the vanity of that confidence in
the flesh. And is not the exposition in vers. 7-14 worthy of the
apostle ?
We shall at present only notice further what has been alleged by
356 INTRODUCTION.
Baur in regard to the occasion of the epistle. Former interpreters
have, in their innocence, adhered to the passage iv. 10, seq., and in-
ferred thence that in its primary occasion and design it is a letter of
thanks from the apostle, which naturally led him to give his readers
some notices respecting himself, and address to them such admoni-
tions as they might then need. And the character of the epistle
seemed perfectly to accord with this supposition. What criticism
has urged against it has already been mentioned above. But 1 Cor.
ix. 15 really contains nothing opposed to the declaration of the
apostle in Phil. iv. 15, 16, that the Philippians had repeatedly sent
money to support him. Baur himself adduces one case from 2 Cor.
xj. 9, " that which was lacking to me the brethren from Macedonia
supplied." But one time, he would have us think, is no time ;
whereas this passage should have convinced him of the error of his
exposition of 1 Cor. ix. 15. For, the apostle does not speak there
at all of his not having received support from any church whatever,
but only of the manner in which he had acted toward the Corinth-
ians comp. ver. 11, seq. And if any doubt might still remain of
the passage, it would be completely removed by 2 Cor. xi. 8, " I
robbed other churches, taking wages of them to do you service."
When Baur further speaks, at ch. iv. 15, of an arrangement formed
from the beginning ; when he charges the pseudo-apostle with an
unchronological enumeration of the pecuniary contributions, or a too
indefinite description of the gifts sent after him to Corinth, and at
last would have it, that in ver. 16, Thessalonica is removed out of
Macedonia ; the whole of his averments are mere fabrications,
which vanish partly under the right exposition of the passages, and
partly from, the consideration that, this pseudo-apostle might have
known as well as the apostle himself, and (since according to Baur
he had 2 Cor. xi. 9 before him), he must have known that the Phi-
lippians had sent a supply to the apostle at Corinth, and what was
the order of succession of their contributions.
All that Baur has as yet brought against the genuineness of our
epistle proves on closer investigation so untenable, so utterly worth-
less, that the grounds of his critical assault on the epistle are incom-
prehensible, unless found in the third class of the considerations
which he urges. The name of Clemens in ch. iv. 3, with which
Baur places in connexion the persons in Caesar's household in ver.
22, bears the responsibility of his entire undertaking. Since neither
history, says Baur, nor tradition knows of any other Clemens, it
must be the same who is elsewhere placed in the closest fellowship
with the Apostle Peter, the first bishop of the church at Borne.
Tradition has reported of this person, that he was a relative of the
imperial house. (Comp. the Clementine Homilies iv. 7 : dvi]p -npbs
yivov$ Tipepiov K/uaopof.) Now, this Clemens belongs indeed not
INTRODUCTION. 357
merely to tradition ; but the piece of history out of which it grew,
abundantly shews that the apostle himself could not have known
this Clemens. The fundus fabulce is that Flavius Clemens, who is
made known to us by Suetonius, Dio Cassius, and Eusebius, who
was a relative of Domitian, and was put to death by this emperor
on account of his ddeorr]^. To refer to the epistle of the Koman
Clemens, in proof that there really was an apostolical Clemens dif-
ferent from him, is, he says, inadmissible, as the name of Clemens
prefixed to it does not prove that it was written by the Clemens of
the Christian tradition. How thus can the apostle have called this
Flavius Clemens of Domitian's time his feilow-worker ? It was only
an author, who lived after the apostolic times, that could place him in
such a relation to the Apostle Paul, living at a period when that
Clemens had become the well-known Clemens of the Roman tra-
dition. And from this point he says the whole purport of the
epistle receives a new light. Now is first explained what is re-
ported in ch. i. 12 of the progress of the gospel, which calls forth
the profound feeling of joy that pervades the entire epistle. This
preponderant feeling of joy explains how the author should ascribe
to the apostle the hope of a speedy deliverance (ch. ii. 24), Still,
the well-known end of the apostle flits before the eyes of the
later author, and hence the hesitancy of mind between life and
death, which appears in such passages as ch. i. 20-24. The design
of the author, which led him to place the Roman Clemens, Peter's
genuine disciple, beside the Apostle Paul as a fellow-worker, was
to form a new bond of harmonious relationship between the two
apostles, as representatives of the Jewish and heathen-Christian
tendencies ; and it is the proper scope of the epistle to put the dig-
nity of the Apostle Paul in its fair and proper light. In conclusion,
reference is made to the anachronism in the designations " bishops
and deacons" at the commencement of the epistle, and to the per-
sons called so enigmatically Euodia and Syntyche, together with
the " dear yoke-fellow" in iv. 3, as proofs against the genuineness of
the epistle.
In regard to the chief point, the spurious character of the epis-
tle would certainly be obvious, if it could be proved that the origin
of the tradition respecting the Roman Clemens, was the Flavius
Clemens of Roman history ; and, secondly, that the Clemens of our
epistle is the same person as the one mentioned in the Christian
tradition. But what is Baur's proof for the first of these positions ?
He compares what Suetonius, Dio Cassius, Eusebius, have said of
that Flavius Clemens, the husband of Domitilla, with the Clemens
of the Clementine homilies. In both we have a man allied to the
imperial family, who became a Christian, and whose wife, according
to one report, and, according to another, his mother and brothers,
358 INTRODUCTION.
were obliged to leave Rome. But even in this last particular there
is a difference which becomes still greater when we ask why the per-
sons in question quit Rome. Domitilla was banished by Domitian to
Pandateria ; the mother and the brothers of the Clementine Clemens
left Rome in consequence of a dream, and withdrew to Athens. Be-
sides, that Flavius Clemens was a near relative of Domitian, this
other a distant one of Tiberius. Why should the Clementines de-
part so far from the original ? Why not allow him to continue a re-
lative of Domitian, robbing him of such an honour, and thereby
departing from the usual custom of traditional embellishment ? But
let us leave the Clemens of the Clementine homilies ; nay, let us
grant, that in one point of view that Flavius Clemens may have
been the fundus fabulce; are we on this account necessitated to
admit that the well-known Clemens of ecclesiastical tradition is also
to be identified with him, as a mere product of traditional embel-
lishment ? No one thinks of reducing the Apostle Peter, because
of such traditional embellishment in the Clementines, to a tradi-
tional man ; why any more that Clemens ? Between him and the
Clementine one there is still a wide distinction. Dionysius of Co-
rinth, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Clemens of Alexandria, Eusebius, never
mention of this Clemens, that he stood in any relationship to the fam-
ily of Caesar. Eusebius distinguishes between him and Flavius, with
whom also he was sufficiently acquainted. (H. E., iii., 18, 2.) Must
Dionysius, about the middle of the second century, and those other
Fathers at the end of the second and the beginning of the third,
have already so far erred as to make a Roman bishop out of that
Roman consul, whom, according to Suetonius, the emperor repente
ex tenuissima suspicione tantum non in ipso ejus consulatu in-
teremit ? A bishop, too, who in the name of the church at Rome
wrote a letter to the Corinthians, which it was customary to read
even in the second century in the public meetings of the Corinthian
church ? The mere name, however, Baur asserts, does not prove
the epistle to have been written by the Clemens of tradition. But
was it still not written by Clemens ? Why not then by the one